Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "NetBank, one of the first internet banks in the country was closed by the FDIC on Friday. Being a loyal customer for 8 years, I am saddened that an institution that provided me with so much great service and a cool, hi tech way to conduct my financial transactions is shutting down. Seems that mortgage defaults are to blame: 'NetBank's closure marks the first bank to close since the recent U.S. housing boom deflated. Critics have said that weak underwriting standards have led to record number of homeowners entering the foreclosure process. But NetBank's rare Internet-based business strategy made it a unique financial institution and its problems aren't expected to mirror issues facing other mortgage lenders, analysts say.'"

Not only is the Slashdot story wrong in that way, it is misleading in another way: "I am saddened that an institution that provided me with so much great service..." NetBank did not, however, have the best interest rates.

BankRate.com [bankrate.com] is the site I used to find those two. BankRate.com is a poor quality resource for finding banks, in my opinion, but it is better than nothing. Does anyone know of a better site for shopping banks?

Do you mean lower rates? I used to work at a "loan servicer" (and collections agency) and NetBank was one of our clients, at least for their car loans.

Their target market, at the time (2005), was for people with good credit, say FICO 760 and better (don't remember the exact numbers). I seem to recall their interest rates were fairly low, at least compared to the other companies we serviced loans for.

A FICO score of 760 isn't "good" it's great. 650-700 is B to B+ credit (generally one can qualify for a loan but your rates will not be optimum). The scale looks something like this:475 bottom of the barrel. If you want a loan, you're going to get eaten alive. (30% interest rates, etc.)525 - 475 your credit really sucks. Like above, though you risk is considered somewhat less. 20-25% interest rates.600 - 525 Credit isn't in good shape, but you can qualify. Interest rates will be high, (20% on average)

I've usually had a through-the-roof credit score--when we bought the van, it was the second highest that the internet sales manager had *ever* seen (and the other wasn't when involved in cars). Until we bought that van, I had zero debt other than student loans, and a credit score way past 800. As an assistant professor.I don't quite make three times as much now, but I have a rather substantial amount of revolving credit and another car loan (the van paid off 2 years ago). That debt, though, is at rates r

To those who are wondering, "what happened to the FDIC?": The FDIC supervises regular banks. NetBank was a "thrift" a weird institution that appeared when the Reagan administration deregulated banking, allowing depositor-owned savings and loan associations [britannica.com] to convert to a sort of commercial bank that specializes in mortgages. Thrifts have a long history of getting in over their heads [fdic.gov], and creating real estate "booms" that price most people out of the home market. But a lot of folks got rich o

S&L's had shareholders prior to regulation. It's credit unions that were and are depositor owned. (The *very* early S&L's were in fact owned by the depositors--they pooled money so that one at a time could buy a house).

The change in S&L's was that the mortgage-lending limitation was dropped. In fact, substantially all of their limits were dropped, and they were for all intents and purposes banks with a different regulator. They were utterly unprepared for this, and

Dude, check out the Britannica link I provided. They were called Savings and Loan Associations for a reason.

When I opened my first bank account (a very long time ago) it was at an S & L. I had to sign a form saying that the directors could vote for themselves on my behalf, unless I actually came to the depositor's meetings.

Yes, check you link, particularly the sections that say "Formerly cooperative institutions" and and "Under a ruling of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which regulates federally chartered savings and loan associations, associations need not rely only on individual deposits for funds. They can borrow from other financial institutions and market mortgage-backed securities, money market certificates, and stock."

It's not really the poor economy, it's the fact Bush has used a bubble [firedoglake.com] instead of actual growth.

We should have had a minor recession in 2001 or 2002, but then it would have been really hard to convince people they needed to funnel huge amounts of money into defense contractors pockets.

Money quote:

The liberal solution would have been to try and find a new tech boom, which in the case of the Gore administration would almost certainly have either been a micro and alternative energy boom or a telecom boom.

"It's not really the poor economy, it's the fact Bush has used a bubble instead of actual growth."

What exactly did the Bush administration do wrong, as far as economic management goes? No matter who was in power, after 9/11 any politician would have drastically increased homeland security and military spending. The Bush Tax cuts were very popular, and would have been implemented anyway, whether or not Bush was in power. Not only that, but while corruption is very photogenic, it's effects have been economically negligible. Our deficit is mostly the result of highly enlarged entitlement spending, which I just can't see tied to George Bush.

You seem to think that presidents are relevant to macroeconomic trends. This is a common political delusion, but in the absence of massively stupid legislation(On the level of what has been seen in Latin America), the Federal Reserve bank is the only office with any real power.

"This housing boom, OTOH, everyone did have to play. Even renters pay more when houses prices are up, although at least they won't have to watch the value of their house plummet. And it's left us with no tangible benefits at all except millions of shoddy McMansions."

Of course, all that we are left with are millions of homes. What use could they serve?

"We could have put that same amount of effort and money in alternate energy, and be in the middle of a nice stock correction now, where alternate energy company stocks are dropping through the floor and being picked up by a few big players which are merging with the big energy suppliers who are just now realizing they need to change their business plan. Which wouldn't hurt John Q. Public at all. John Q. Public, in fact, came out ahead because he got 'sponsored' for solar panels and that company, with a crappy business plan, went out of business, like during the tech crash."

What exactly did the Bush administration do wrong, as far as economic management goes? No matter who was in power, after 9/11 any politician would have drastically increased homeland security and military spending. The Bush Tax cuts were very popular, and would have been implemented anyway, whether or not Bush was in power. Not only that, but while corruption is very photogenic, it's effects have been economically negligible. Our deficit is mostly the result of highly enlarged entitlement spending, which I

He's not being sarcastic, he's a right-wing lunatic.One that curses big government when it's a democrat doing it, and praises it when an order of magnitude more is spent to blow up some brown people. One that blames Clinton for all things evil, but claims Bush is powerless to stop anything bad at all.

Don't bother reasoning with him. DavidShor is a far-gone, fact-free, idiotic, right-wing loser. He will only agree with you if the GOP tells him to do so. His only purpose in life is to remind others of how

That isn't nice, I actualy think Clinton was the best president of the last 50 years. I don't support the war in Iraq, and I support any and every decrease in military spending. As for your brown people remark, I'm actually Arab myself, maybe I hate myself?

But really, we have to be realistic. Shouting "BUSH SUCKS" at the top of our lungs does not accomplish anything. While I am incredibly disappointed with the events of the last 7 years, I want to analyze the real causes, and pinpoint blame to the right p

"The prescription drug program didn't give anyone entitlements except the drug companies.
If you meant he rose spending, yes, I know. Pretending it's caused by 'entitlements' when it's actually an expansion of the military and corporate welfare is just deceitful."

Yes, it was a rather disgusting corporate welfare program. Regardless, senior citizens received drugs they would have had to pay for, so I count it as an entitlement. Semantics aside, the deficit is due mostly to growth in these programs.

If you think Gore would have managed the economy any better after 9/11, I've got a bridge to sell you (or should I say a Miami condo).For those who actually followed financial news, the recession really began in the summer of 2000. Its effects just became noticeable after 9/11 when companies completely stopped hiring and in many cases began massive layoffs. For the tech industry, 2002 was a great depression.

Alternative energy bubbles have come and gone over the years, and will never be enough to save the en

Inflation has been roaring during the past decade, but masked by cheap imports and temporary absorption of the money used to pay for those cheap goods.

True unemployment is sky high, around 50% by historical metrics. The government unemployment numbers were redefined to ignore people are barred by law from employment and people who are unable to find employment. The government has also ratcheted up efforts to legally ban more people from employ

Bottom line is with stagnant median income, people just can't afford a house. The real estate sector, after an unprecidented run up, is undergoing correction and it will be long and will take some people under. If you're renting or can afford your mortgage, you'll do okay. Every else might as well mail in the keys. If the debt is to netbank, send the jingle mail to ING direct instead. This is the downside of mass immigration and easy money, people. Time to buck up!

weak underwriting standards have led to record number of homeowners entering the foreclosure process

I've never understood the wildly inflated home prices in some areas. Assuming that these are "market prices" and not crazy owners' wished-for buyouts, at some point no one will be able to afford to own a home.

What happens then? A house market crash?

The only people that win from high real estate prices are those that cash-in and move somewhere cheaper, the lenders (usually) and the agents.

Everything is driven by supply and demand. In the case of the housing market, weak lending practices created a demand much greater than the market would support under normal conditions. It's not hard to predict that the market would eventually catch up to this.If you just bought a house, your pretty much screwed, unless you plan to stay where you are for the next 20-30 years. Prices will likely drop over the next 2 years or so depending on your market. If you have to sell, you will have a mortgage larger th

Depends on the market and whether local salaries can support local housing prices. Take NYC -- housing prices continue to rise significantly despire all the market troubles? Why?
- Because the average banker (there are thousands of them) can make $350k these days, at that point, an $850k studio makes perfect sense.
- Because when two bankers, each making even a modest $120k get married, their combined buying power easily affords them a $1M 1B apartment
- Because the worthless dollar allows Brits and Euro

I think its unlikely we will see an equivalent housing boom again. Unless banks and mortgage lenders don't learn from their mistakes.

This is said after every boom and bust, and during the next boom they say "this time is different because..." I remember the Savings and Loans [wikipedia.org] scandal from the 1980s. This current debacle is looking awfully familiar.

A bit more complex than that. You also need for lenders to be making imprudent loans. It is perfectly possible -- at least in theory -- to be awash in credit, but not to be using it to fuel huge bubbles. You up margin requirements on securities, have minimum down payment requirements, forbid issuing of most types of financial derivatives, etc. Without NINJA (No Income, No Job, no Asset) loans and the like, the bubble has trouble form

This is all in the hands of the bankers. Let's face most people are not very bright. If someone will give them a credit to buy a house they can't really afford, they'll take it. They don't understand what an adjustable rate it, they don't understand percentages, exponential growth, and how banking system works. If someone is giving away loans like candy, there will be someone else willing to take the candy.

Now the question is this: Are banks stupid as well? They are the ones that actually do know what can

This is why I never understood how the Fed lowering interest rate ever helps anything when it comes to real estate. I almost bought a house in 2000, when rates were higher. Then rates lowered, and people realized they could buy a house for cheaper, which lead to an increased demand for houses, which drove up the price of said houses. In the end, people are paying more per month on a house now than they would have if they bought it in 2000. So, why do people go gaga over a lower rate in the first place?

"This is all in the hands of the bankers. Let's face most people are not very bright. If someone will give them a credit to buy a house they can't really afford, they'll take it. They don't understand what an adjustable rate it, they don't understand percentages, exponential growth, and how banking system works. If someone is giving away loans like candy, there will be someone else willing to take the candy."

But not you, you are financially responsible, unlike the unwashed masses.

ING Group is pretty major, I don't think they are going under any time soon (ING Direct is one of their divisions). However if it does, you needn't worry as mentioned this is what FIDC insurance is for. Up to $100,000 of your deposit is covered by the FDIC. So unless you've got more than that in there, you are fine. If you do have more, may I suggest you seek the services of a financial consultant, as that is too much money to just leave sit in a bank account, even one with a reasonable interest rate.

ING only bought the deposit accounts. Most of NetBank's mortgages are going to Everbank, apparently with the bad one staying with FDIC until they can find a sucker^wbuyer. In any event, deposits at NetBank are insured, so few account holders will lose money (the exceptions being about 1500 people who had more than $100,000 on deposit.

You're fooling yourself if you think that FDIC insured is going to be worth more than two squirts of piss when the day comes that ING fails. If a depression or stagflation take it down, that $100,000 likely won't buy you a loaf of bread based on current circumstances.

I'm not trying to chicken little here, I'm just trying to say that "If something could take ING (and similiar banks) down, that something is going to have widespread effects on many, many, more things".

I don't really see why you are so concerned. If a major bank fails, FDIC liabilities would almost surely be under 300 billion. And we finance 300 billion in bonds every year anyway, without much effect on inflation.

I don't really see why you are so concerned. If a major bank fails, FDIC liabilities would almost surely be under 300 billion. And we finance 300 billion in bonds every year anyway, without much effect on inflation.

Your right, the FDIC will be able handle a single major bank failure. Multiple bank failures and it wont be able to.

It looks like 1500 people had $109 million over the 100K FDIC insurance
limit - an average of about $73K - so they'll probably lose it. Many of
these will probably be small amounts, say accumulated interest on $100K
deposits; at other extreme, there a likely an unfortunate few who will
be in very bad shape, essentially having lost most of their life
savings, if they put all their eggs in this one basket.

Most banks do not try to discourage deposits more than $100K.
I recall seeing offers of jumbo CDs sta

Yup - why anybody would deposit more than $100k in a bank account is beyond me. Banks pay horrible interest - they're only useful for day-to-day liquid activities without large balance requirements, and due to the fact that in the US they're insured up to $100k.If you have more than that you're much better-off investing in a mutual fund of some sort. Even if it is just a money-market fund. Most of those at least have private insurance - it won't protect you if the stock market completely crashes, but it

Shameless plug, as I built most of their tech architecture:-) -- check out Promontory Interfinancial Group's CDARS program. These guys take a regular bank's CD program and extend the FDIC coverage to $50M or more. The rates are basically the same and often higher.

I don't know if they actually take the CDs, but many banks also participate in the CDARs program. There's a good chance that the bank that you are using participates and can get you a fully insured CD greater than $100K.

If I remember right, the head guy for the Promontory outfit is a former head of the FDIC, and the program will do what it says that it does.

Yes, Promontory is run by a bunch of ex Administration heads (OCC, FDIC, Fed, etc.) There are about a thousand banks that participate. The place I was working at was the back-end, they do all the logistics for the participant banks.

OK so keep 2 of those CD's as your 'safety net' and aggressively invest the rest of it. If you are under 40 you don't have much to lose.

I have most of my money in an agressive allocation fund with my investment company, and the historical return rate is 11%. Last year was over 16%. I've broke double digits this year despite the doom&gloom you hear everyone talking about. There's no reason to keep all your money in CD's.

And if you are older, go for a less agressive investment scheme, and net 8-9%. Co

It may be worse than that: the FDIC insurance applies to checking and savings accounts, but not money market accounts. Money market account holders can get in line with other creditors during the bankruptcy proceedings. Moral of the story: if you have a money market account, make sure you know the financial health of your bank.

(Note that credit unions are insured separately by a different organization, so money market accounts there may be covered.)

It largely depends. Many banks have "money market" accounts that are classified as savings accounts as far as the FDIC is concerned and are insured. Many money market accounts are in fact uninsured as well.

Netbank had a "money market" account which was FDIC insured - at least as far as I'm aware (and I did take the time to find out).

I'm guessing it comes down to whether the bank wanted to follow FDIC rules regarding investments/limits/reserves/etc. Most money market mutual funds don't - but they're still very safe due to their investment profile. Also - most non-FDIC-insured money market funds tend to be privately insured against anything but investment risk.

Bottom line is - anybody with any kind of account no matter what it is called or where it is held should be aware of its FDIC-insurance status. Many banks have both insured and non-insured investment products.

Parent is correct. I have a Netbank (now ING) 'Money Market' account that I started about a month ago. I was very concerned so I called the FDIC via the number they have published on the Netbank information sites and was assured that it was insured and all my funds would still be available.

The Netbank site is now back online, and you can get back in and see your accounts again. The big question for me, especially with the first of the Month on Monday, is what is happening with all my Bill Pay transac

I checked into this, too (although I was quite relieved that I tend to pay my credit cards a couple days after I receive the statements, and not just before the due dates, so I'm covered for another month).Any electronic bill transactions will be held until Sunday, but all direct deposits will be automatically transferred and electronic transactions will resume Sunday evening. As far as I can tell, there should be no interruption--we'll even continue using the NetBank website for the next couple of months.

Note that credit unions are insured separately by a different organization, so money market accounts there may be covered.

The federal insurance program which insures credit unions is essentially the same as the FDIC insurance program.

However, for some reason, only credit unions seek out secondary private insurance (at least, I know of no bank that has the secondary insurance.) My credit union has secondary insurance (from these people [excessshare.com]) that adds $250k to the $100k to make $350k, and it will work for money

One small nit -- they're only GUARANTEED to 100k. In practice I believe they've always covered accounts fully. That makes sense, if your goal is to promote public confidence, while leaving yourself an exit if a major bank fails.

Nope. For a while there was the "too big to fail" doctrine, in which the economic effects (particularly secondary failures) were considered in bailing out past the limits (Bail out this one for an extra $10M instead of coughing up $50M as later ones failed).Then the "racial" effects were noted--small black banks with excess deposits (Bank of Harlem?) for payroll weren't covered. And then there was the moral hazard and competitive problems with people realizing that big enough banks couldn't fail and that

VIII. Dividend InformationDue to the projected sale of assets of the former bank, the FDIC is in the position to provide each uninsured depositor with an dividend equal to 50% of your uninsured amount. These funds will be deposited directly into your account net of your uninsured portion.Dividend Information on Failed Financial Institutions contains general information about the dividend process.

They will not automatically lose all uninsured funds. You will see that the FDIC has already authorized payment for 50% of the uninsured funds out of the expected proceeds from the sale of the loan assets. (The deposits were purchased by ING, but not the loans.) The FDIC also states that they expect further dividends beyond the 50% will be made available as things wind down.

While the folks with uninsured assets will lose a bit, it won't be the end of the world.

The defaults aren't something that 'just happened' to them - they chose to get involved in what anyone should have seen as being an extremely risky market. (Buying mortgage paper on the secondary market.) But the ultimate culprits are the (all but unregulated) mortgage companies, who loan the money then promptly sell the paper - they've taken their money and profit and are walking away virtually scott free from this developing crisis.

But the ultimate culprits are the (all but unregulated) mortgage companies, who loan the money then promptly sell the paper - they've taken their money and profit and are walking away virtually scott free from this developing crisis.

I dunno - they wouldn't do it if people didn't buy the paper.

Suppose I find ten homeless people and loan them $100 each, and then sell those loans to somebody for $1100 - netting $100 in the process? As long as I was honest about what I was selling, have I done anything wrong?

The real culprits are people who buy loans without any care for whether the debtors can make the payments.

Not exactly. A lot of the MBSes were rated as investment grade by the ratings agencies, who share a lot of the blame. The MBS purchasers' mistake was to buy something that was too good to be true. When you're playing poker and you cannot figure out who the mark is, you're the mark.

I've enjoyed using Netbank for several years now, and as someone who moves around a lot having a branchless bank equally accessible from anywhere in the country has been nice. They even have (had) ATMs here in B.F. Mississippi. I'm sad to see them go.

Are there similar alternatives to Netbank that anyone would recommend?

For reasons that had nothing to do with any intuition of an impending collapse (I was actually most annoyed that they didn't play nicely with Mac Quicken), I moved all my deposits from NetBank to USAA a few months ago. I've been very happy with USAA; they offer more online features and a better website UI than NetBank did, excellent customer service, and ATM-fee reimbursement (up to $10/mo or so). Their interest rates on checking aren't quite as high, but that's a small price to pay, particularly since it s

I was getting nostalgic recently since I used to work for NextCard, and was wondering how the other online banks were doing like NetBank and VirtualBank... and was surprised they were both still in business. I was also checking on other online banks.Anyway, I think E*Trade is probably the best one out there. If you have direct deposit, you can set up a Max-Rate Checking account and won't have to worry about paying any fee if your balance is too low. They give you 0.5% APY for balances under $5000, and I

You neglect to mention why. Netbank doesn't have minimum balance fees or anyting onerous in general, although if you open an account with $100 and proceed to write 75 checks for $1000 each you would easily run into the scenario you describe at any bank.Netbank grew so big by being one of the few banks that DIDN'T charge fees for anything and everything. Generally the only thing they charged fees for was stuff that you'd expect - frequent withdrawls on a money market account, overdrafts, etc. This stuff i

Does ING actually provide paper statements? It seems like charging for paper statements is becoming standard practice in many arenas. In some cases it is standard but there is a monthly charge just for having an account...

Well, they do cost money - they probably didn't advertise it because they wanted their customers not to request them.

Just about every company I do business is constantly offering to switch me to "free" electronic statements.:) I prefer paper and stick with it, although electronic would probably be more reliable if anything.

I mean, mostly I care because its a bank failure in general. I don't care any more or less because it's 'OMG ONLINE BANK WOW'. And of course, you would expect some banks to fail here and there right now: a lot of them made poor lending decisions and deserve the consequences. The good news is we've learned from previous bank failures and now at least most customers won't be out anything.If you really want an online bank every major bank offers online banking. Some have more features than others, but there ar

Wow, guess I got out just in time. I pulled my money out of there a couple months ago, closed the account, and moved it into EverBank [everbank.com]. When I signed up for NetBank in 2004, they had one of the most competitive interest rates for checking accounts available (according to Bankrate.com [bankrate.com]). However, as time went on I noticed there were more and more online banks that had better deals. I suppose it wouldn't have been too bad, it looks like all of NetBank's customers automatically are getting transferred to ING [ingdirect.com]

I have been a happy NetBank customer for over five years now. Really good customer support, no fees on basically anything. I only did checking and savings account, and it is a shame that a bad housing market brought all of it down, but that is the way it goes.I move around a lot, and with direct deposit I never felt the need for a brick-and-morter bank to ever go to. It never made sense for me to pay for the buildings that I was never using. NetBank also had some innovative features to make things easier li

I've been using SalemFive http://salemfive.com/ [salemfive.com] for four months now and have been wildly impressed. My "eONE checking account" had no setup fees, has no minimum acccount balance, they pay me 5.00% interest compounded daily and credited monthly, they REIMBURSE ATM FEES up to $20/mo. (I believe this is the figure, I've never exceeded the amount)and they even gave me my first 25 checks free. I keep thinking this is too good to be true and soon something will change, but I'll be damned if it hasn't been simply

For what it's worth most of NetBank's features are available elsewhere. My USAA account also includes the "deposit via UPS" envelopes, and some niceties like the ability to deposit a check by scanning it.I feel very fortunate that my experience with NetBank's customer service was extremely unpleasant. So unpleasant, in fact, that I never funded the small business account I opened with them.

They had some serious bugs in their software that prevented me from initiating an ACH to fund my account. When I ask

I got an account with them a few years ago. They had the worst service I've ever seen in a bank... and I've seen pretty bad. The attitude was also clearly that they didn't care. I closed my account after just a few months.

After her previous company downsized, she talked to Netbank about a job; her first in-person interview was scheduled for September 11, 2001. Oooops. We saw the second tower hit live on the Today show right before she left; once she got there, the nation's entire financial industry went into lockdown, and she spent the whole day sitting in the lobby of their offices. Heh. Was that some kind of omen?

Anyway, she got the job, and went to work doing business analysis -- which promotions actually drew in new customers, what percentage of new customers retained their accounts, et cetera; she also maintained the list of ATMs that were in service and in their network; and was responsible for generating the customer lists for both the various e-mail contacts and the annual privacy policy mailings (<geek_meat>SAS and SQL, mostly</geek_meat>).

She really liked her job, and she liked her co-workers.

The turning point for Netbank, IMHO, came after the retirement of one of its founders and a merger with another online bank called RBMG which was located in Columbia, SC (which is, ironically, where we lived before we moved to Atlanta years ago). There were the usual issues of corporate culture which arise during mergers; there were issues regarding differing customer expectations (she ran studies on customer surveys which showed dramatically different attitudes, expectations, and opinions between customers from RBMG and customers from Netbank); there were issues arising from the fact that, although the company retained its Netbank name and identity (and the deal was structured as a Netbank acquisition of RBMG), the center of gravity for the new company was in Columbia, with the former RBMG; and, frankly (again, IMHO), there were issues with RBMG's upper management and corporate strategy.

Netbank "Classic" had been focussed on, and content with, being, well, a bank. Checking and savings, CDs and Money Markets; you know the drill. RBMG, though, had aspirations both grander and farther afield, starting with mortgages (in fact, the "MG" in "RBMG" stood for "Mortgage Group").

That didn't work out too terribly well.

By last year, there were some signs of strain. While the overwhelming majority of folks working in Atlanta and Columbia (and Jacksonville) were really great, and on the ball, there was a bit of a corporate malaise; RBMG ran what seemed to me to be a less employee-friendly operation (one of the first things they did, for instance, was move Netbank's Atlanta HQ from its basic "A" or "B" office space into a semi-crappy converted former retail space which was, at best, a high "C" quality office space). The bad vibe was subtle at first, but it was certainly there; and as the mortgage business began sucking more and more, money got tighter and tighter, and things got less and less functional.

Finally, as last year began to wind down, more and more employees started to jump ship from my wife's group. Eventually, it got to the point where she was more or less forced to jump ship, simply because everyone else already had, and she would be left in department that couldn't possibly do all of the things it was expected to.

By the time she left, right at the end of the year, there was a really grim air about the place; and we got to look on in horror this year as her company stock shares rapidly declined in value to the point where it wasn't even worth bothering to sell them.

We still have a Netbank account with a small amount of money in it, and a lingering bittersweet fondness for the brand and the people who worked for it; but we're certainly not regretting her decision to leave, that's for sure.

I've been a NetBank customer for the past few years, and have had decent service from them (though the interest rates on their checking and money market accounts really tanked in the last couple of years). My dad's company had a business account there, however, that turned out to be a nightmare.When my dad passed away unexpectedly in February, I had to get access to the company's bank accounts. Unfortunately, he was the only signer on the account. It took six months for them to give me access to the money (

NetBank's closure marks the first bank to close since the recent U.S. housing boom deflated.

Other banks have already closed because the owned too many rotten mortgages, including (for example) Greenpoint Mortgage [novatoadvance.com]. Greenpoint was owned by a larger, full-service bank, but that distinction wasn't made in this article. As usual, journalists like to portray Internet business as unusual, fly-by-night, and inherently risky in a way that non-Internet businesses of the same kind somehow are not.

You can bet your bottom dollar on it. Oh wait you already did.You shouldve kept it under the mattress.

No. If my credit union or bank closed tomorrow, I could withdraw all of my funds, up to the bank's insured amount -- which is more than I or most other Americans make in a year.

Now, if I had instead invested my money and bought shares of the bank, then I'd be up shit creek without a paddle. But that's why stocks pay more -- because they're riskier, and so they have to or no one would buy them.

No. If my credit union or bank closed tomorrow, I could withdraw all of my funds, up to the bank's insured amount -- which is more than I or most other Americans make in a year.

Actually you and the grandparent are wrong. If the economy collapse, inflation and devaluation of the dollar makes your savings in the mattress or in the bank less value and hence you loose your money. You should have invested in gold and stuck that under your mattress.

You gold-bugs severely overestimate the impact of printing money. If a major bank collapsed, the FDIC would only need to insure around a 30 billion, since the majority of funds are kept above $100,000.

The inflationary effects of such an injection, while they exist, would most likely be far under one percent.

Yeah.... I, too, was a long-time Netbank customer. Back when I first signed up with them, they were one of the ONLY ways to do free, unlimited online billpay.Over the years, that turned into a "non issue" as practically all the other respectable banks and credit unions offered the same thing.... but I stuck with Netbank anyway, because frankly, I was screwed over and bumped around from bank to bank with my locally held checking account. (It seemed like every month or two, for a while there, whatever ba

Anxious customers jammed the phone lines and website of Countrywide Bank and crowded its branch offices to pull out their savings because of concerns about the financial problems of the mortgage lender that owns the bank.

Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest home-loan company in the nation, sought Thursday to assure depositors and the financial industry that both it and its bank were fiscally stable. And federal regulators said they weren't